On a theological note, and from a Biblical standpoint, ancient man would have had salvation through faith in Christ just as we do… their faith looked forward to a promised messiah, while our's looks back.

But if we Listen To TroutMac we'll get ever so confused.

Quote

I'm very skeptical of the notion that humans EVER lived as the "stereotypical" caveman. So in one sense, I agree with you… ancient civilizations would probably surprise us with their technology, relative to the popular conception of that technology is.

You know Troutmac is sooooo totally wrong! I remember what happened like it was yesterday...

This fast-talking dude with long hair and @ 11-12 of his friends came to our cave, said he had some Big Magic for us. So, he tried talking to us on this little hill - he called it a Sermon on the Mount or something? Boorring....

Anyway, to make a long story short, we'd had a tough winter, they were not from our tribe, so we killed him and all his friends and ate them. Damnd guy gave me gas too.

We didn't get bothered by any stinking shamans for quite a while after that, so I guess it was kind of a miracle, you know?

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

On a theological note, and from a Biblical standpoint, ancient man would have had salvation through faith in Christ just as we do… their faith looked forward to a promised messiah, while our's looks back.

But if we Listen To TroutMac we'll get ever so confused.

Quote

I'm very skeptical of the notion that humans EVER lived as the "stereotypical" caveman. So in one sense, I agree with you… ancient civilizations would probably surprise us with their technology, relative to the popular conception of that technology is.

You know Troutmac is sooooo totally wrong! I remember what happened like it was yesterday...

This fast-talking dude with long hair and @ 11-12 of his friends came to our cave, said he had some Big Magic for us. So, he tried talking to us on this little hill - he called it a Sermon on the Mount or something? Boorring....

Anyway, to make a long story short, we'd had a tough winter, they were not from our tribe, so we killed him and all his friends and ate them. Damnd guy gave me gas too.

We didn't get bothered by any stinking shamans for quite a while after that, so I guess it was kind of a miracle, you know?

So you guys didn't use brontosauruses (brontosauri?) for construction work, and drive cars with two huge stone cylinders for wheels, propelling them with your bare feet?

All my illusions have been cruelly shattered!

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

You can get whatever result you want, by picking the appropriate ID. Want the hexagon to be designed? Fine. Read Privileged Planet, say the laws of physics were designed, and accordingly, all the downstream effects are too. Intent follows the bullet, as they say in law. Want the hexagon not to be designed? Fine. Say it comes from the laws of physics, and is therefore a 'regularity' in the Dembskiian scheme, and the Explanatory Filter rejects it as undesigned.

Congrats, Richard. That comment was succinctly vicious and teh funny--kinda like tickling your victim with your poignard before delicately slipping it between his ribs.

And, in case I've failed to mention it before--and in full knowledge of the risks of labelling I run!--let me just say that:

I love Zachriel!

His astute observations form the backbone of this thread, rendering it simultaneously one of the savviest and one of the funniest on the Net.

I'm just glad he doesn't charge a subscription...

Careful we don't want him to give him a bigger head than the size of small planet.

RTH I blame you for this outbreak of back slapping particularly your own!

Next you'll be saying you'll be busy hanging around on Easter.

As for Louis doing a second coming ...serves him right.

Of course this assumes an understanding of complex beginnings but complex understandings are the hallmark of intelligence and around here we don’t presume intelligence is out of the question.

AROUND THESE PARTS WE DON'T PRESUME INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS OUT OF THE QUESTION..... THE DESGINER IS A MAD MEAT EATING FAT WHITE GAS JUNKIE GUN TOTING WOMANIZING MIDDLE CLASS WHITE COLLAR REPUBLICAN TEXAN MALE 50 YEARS OLD AND HE AINT NO #### HOMO YANKEE OR JEWBOY WITH A NAME LIKE DEMBSKI OR FRIED-MAN ...ER I MEAN JESUS. -dt

PS. SHE AINT INUIT EITHER.

PPS. BUT IF ALL YOU OTHER GIRLS WANT TO COME AND PLAY WITH MY WATER TOY SEND ME ONE OF YOUR HOME MADE CAKES AND I'LL PM YOU.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

The recent Miller-Luskin affair is a tempest in a teapot, but it underscores the fact that Luskin is a hack spin doctor whose crapola can be believed only by those who are determined to believe crapola.

Brief recap: Miller was interviewed by BBC, Luskin accused him of mischaracterizing Dembski's argument, Miller said that he wasn't even talking about Dembski's argument.

Miller writes, "I do not remember the exact question that prompted my response."He claims he doesn't remember the question he was asked, but he claims he does remember he wasn't talking about Dembski. Miller's admission of a fading memory on this matter does not inspire confidence for the things he claims he does remember. After all, in the documentary Miller clearly states he is critiquing the "mathematical tricks employed by intelligent design," and Dembski is widely recognized as the leading mathematical theorist in the ID movement. Dembski seems a likely target for Miller's comments.

Since Miller can't remember everything from a year ago, what he does remember is probably wrong. And since Miller used the word "mathematical" and "intelligent design" together, he must have been talking about Dembski. After all, nobody else has ever tried to make a case for a creator based on probability.

Quote

(2) Miller has a history of misrepresenting intelligent design arguments:Miller attempts to pass the blame to Discovery Institute, saying we "should know better," implying we should not think he would misrepresent Dembski. This reminds us how, in 2003, Dembski told Miller that Miller "should know better" than to claim that ID necessarily requires “the direct and active involvement of an outside designer.” Yet in this very BBC documentary, Miller repeats the same false claim, saying, "By the terms of the advocates of intelligent design themselves, the designer creates outside of nature, supernaturally..." (time index 39:25) Shouldn’t Miller “know better” than to make such claims? Based upon this example and many others, we “know” that Miller at times misrepresents the arguments of ID-theorists.

This one really irks me. If you look at the incident that Luskin is referring to, it is Dembski who flails at a strawman as he addresses a criticism that Miller never made. Luskin, in turn, misconstrues Dembski's point. I would chock this up to abysmal reading skills on the part of Luskin and Dembski, but since they both have degrees, I think good old-fashioned dishonesty is the only explanation for their word-twisting.

Quote

(3) Miller admits that the documentary makes it look like he's talking about Dembski:....If we assume Miller's explanation of the situation is true, then according to Miller's admission that the documentary "does mislead the viewer," then I did nothing wrong. I simply watched the video and took away the message any reasonable viewer would take: the context strongly indicates that Miller was talking about Dembski.

No, a reasonable viewer would notice that Miller didn't say anything at all about Dembski. Both Jeremy and I saw this, which prompted Jeremy's email to Miller, which resulted in Miller confirming that he wasn't talking about Dembski. If any reasonable viewer would make the same mistake as Luskin, then how did several "Darwinists" manage to avoid that mistake?

Quote

(4) If Miller wasn't talking about Dembski, he's still promoting a straw man view:...no ID-proponent argues that mere improbability is enough to infer design nor do they argue that some inconsequential but unlikely event (like a hand dealt in a game of cards) is enough to falsify neo-Darwinian evolution. Design theorists acknowledge that improbable events happen all the time. When inferring design, they always couple improbability with some specification. One commenter on Dembski's blog, "gpuccio," explained this point clearly:

"As far as I know, nobody in the ID field has ever made the silly argument that Miller criticizes. Everybody, instead, in the ID field, constantly mentions the CSI argument due to Dembski, and so clearly and beautifully explained in many of his writing."

Well, if such an authority as gpuccio from UD says so, then it must be true.

What a crock. I'll bet most people who have the notion that evolution is simply too improbable have never even heard of, much less read, Dembski. The improbability argument was around long before Dembski, and it's still around. To say that nobody uses it by itself and that everybody always pairs improbability with specification is simply ridiculous. I can think of two IDers just in the past week who have trotted out the improbability argument without mentioning specification.

Heaven help the DI if Luskin is the best spokesman they can find. But then again, it really doesn't matter what he says. IDers will faithfully imbibe his swill no matter how putrid it is.

--------------"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

Yet in this very BBC documentary, Miller repeats the same false claim, saying, "By the terms of the advocates of intelligent design themselves, the designer creates outside of nature, supernaturally..." (time index 39:25) Shouldn’t Miller “know better” than to make such claims?

Hmm, I'm a little curious ---- if the Intelligent Designer (note the caps) does NOT create outside of nature and does NOT create "supernaturally", then, um, why the heck do Dembski et al continuously bitch and whine and weep and moan and groan about evolution's asserted, uh, "materialism" and "naturalism" . . . . . ? If the Designer is natural and material, and not outside of nature or supernatural, then, uh, what the #### are they bitching about (and, um, why do they always capitalize "Intelligent Designer) . . . .?

We're having a little discussion at my blog about this... I'm afraid I blatted on and on, and I didn't mean to, but I am very disturbed about the lines being drawn here - Dembski lashing out at Miller, Febble being banned, etc. I am as sickened by Wells as I can be, but he gets a free pass to "exercise his freedom of speech" about AIDS, whereas Christians who have something to say get the harsh treatment.

I expect Dembski to pick on Dawkins and PZ and Gould and Scott, etc., but Ken Miller? Come on, Bill. We all know that your agenda is about the supernatural. If you would just be honest about it I could respect that.

Man, lemme tell you guys something. I don't believe in the supernatural, but if I did, you wouldn't catch me arguing with other believers about God's nature or what God thinks or what God can and cannot do/be. You can only fight about things you own, know, or have control over. Get me?

ID just ain't working out, and you'd think a believer like William Dembski (but is he a believer or a doubter who can't afford to look at his doubt?) would at least see this as a sign and realize that his deity obviously doesn't like to be told what to do. Does he need me to tell him this? Helloooo! It's call idolatry, Bill!

I am reminded of a local teacher who told of a mother coming to her daughter's parent-teacher conference to fight for a better grade for her daughter's paper. The mother launched into all sorts of explanations as to why the paper deserved an A, until the teacher realized that this mother was fighting so hard because the daughter hadn't written the paper after all - the mother had! Likewise, is Dembski fighting for what he thinks is the truth, or is he dig in just because ID is his idea, all his? Get me?

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Being built like an average NFL football player has its advantages but at my age I should be shooting for middleweight boxer instead.

Richard - Thanks for the link - At the end of the post, DaveScot tries to lure FTK to his little Texas Love-nest with his water-sport skilz.

I just hope FTK realizes that Dave assumes they're doing it, you know, for the kids:

Quote (Davescot @ his own deluded little world)

...once you've had a few wives of other men yelling at you in the throes of passion "I want to have your baby" then you'll understand. It's a little disconcerting at first but you get used to it after a while. It's a dirty job but someone has to make the world a smarter place. Some choose to teach children so they'll be smarter and some choose to make them smarter via genetics.

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

RTH I blame you for this outbreak of back slapping particularly your own!

Guilty, but I'm worth it.

Well, now he will be darn near insufferable around here. Red State Rabble doffs it's cap in his direction. Pat Hayes summarizes thusly:

Quote

Certainly the list was specified. Was it the complexity that made the task so daunting?

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Miller writes, "I do not remember the exact question that prompted my response."...After all, in the documentary Miller clearly states he is critiquing the "mathematical tricks employed by intelligent design," and Dembski is widely recognized as the leading mathematical theorist in the ID movement. Dembski seems a likely target for Miller's comments.

I cut Luskin some slack here. When I hear "ID" and "mathematical tricks" together I think "William Dembski" too.

An understandable garden path error.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

RTH I blame you for this outbreak of back slapping particularly your own!

Guilty, but I'm worth it.

Well, now he will be darn near insufferable around here. Red State Rabble doffs it's cap in his direction.

Don't worry, Louis and I are doing our best to keep Richard humble.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

[Well, now he will be darn near insufferable around here. Red State Rabble doffs it's cap in his direction.

Don't worry, Louis and I are doing our best to keep Richard humble.

:)

Well, it appears you may be getting some help from an unexpected quarter:

Quote

Antievolution.org Discussion Board welcomes our newest member Ftk making a total of 1170 registered members.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Evidently not convinced that ID is dying quickly enough on it's own, Denyse presents an argument from analogy: Fire marshall's routinely conclude "design" (technically, "arson") from investigating the evidence, and that's really all that ID does, so if you think that fire marshalls should be allowed to make design inferences, it follows that you should allow for scientists (re: IDers) to infer design, too.

(Note this is not the first time Denyse has made these arguments, she made similar claims here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-denied and they were rather succinctly debunked here: http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2007....u.html) where RLC observes that in order to make the "design inference" the fire marshall does, it is absolutely imperative that he have some knowledge of the suspected arsonists means, motives, and abilities. We will continue in RLC's vein.)

Of course, Denyse does not notices these objections, and goes on:

If the FMO concludes that the fire is arson, far from losing the ability to find out anything more, it is in a position to focus on key details (Where was the fire started? What accelerant and how much? What was the pattern and timing of spread?).

This is an interesting facet of ID that RLC touched on, but is rarely made so clear - Denyse seems to believe that the fire marshall is in a position to conclude that the fire was arson without considering relevant information like "Where was the fire started? What accelerant and how much? What was the pattern and timing of spread?" - but if this information can only be considered after the determination of intelligent design was made, what information, pray tell, was used to make the design conclusion in the first place? Without the relevant information: means, mode, motive, the FMO has no evidence available to determine arson in the first place. Note that this is more than a rhetorical trick - the discontinuity here underlies all of ID: ID assumes that we can make conclusions regarding design in nature lacking any knowledge regarding the abilities, motives, and means of the purported designer; but in doing so the argument falls flat. (Again RLC makes similar points here: http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2007....u.html)

It's also worth noting that scientists routinely infer design when the means, mode, and motive of the purported designers are well established, so the IDers claims that science rules out design a priori is patently false.

(This defense will work better if her client has looked and acted, throughout the proceedings, like a large rodent crammed into a dress suit, and appears truly unable to grasp the moral significance of the accusations against him.)

At this point Denyse apparently wades into the moral and ethical underpinnings of the ID conclusion - we might ask Denyse why being created by aliens allows us to grasp the moral significance of our actions. I am sure ID will propose an answer.

Should scientists refuse to consider design a possibility because they are “objective”?I've never heard an argument that suggested that scientists can't consider ID a possibility because they are "objective" - it's not clear what that means. I and others have suggested that ID is not a valid scientific theory because it makes no testable claims - precisely because it refuses to speculate on the means, modes, and motives of the designer.

Well, how about this: Suppose the FMO gets a call from a leading local politician announcing that he wants the arson investigation called off because the FMO has no business assuming that someone might have wanted that building torched?

If the FMO thinks it has reasonable grounds for pursuing its present line of inquiries, should it meekly accept that argument? Should we assume that the politician obstructing the investigation is “objective”? Or rather that he is trying to defend somebody or something? In the same way, materialists attempting to suppress ID-friendly scientists are hardly “objective” in the matter.

But now the argument takes a turn for the worse; Denyse accuses people who think that methodological naturalism is a good way to do science of "trying to defend someone or something" (i.e. arsonists, and probably rapists too); but the "thing" being defended is no arsonist - it is the very underpinnings of science. Of course by Denyse's analogy, those who think that methodological naturalism is a sound premise of science are actually hiding arsonits in their basements.

The recent Miller-Luskin affair is a tempest in a teapot, but it underscores the fact that Luskin is a hack spin doctor whose crapola can be believed only by those who are determined to believe crapola.

Brief recap: Miller was interviewed by BBC, Luskin accused him of mischaracterizing Dembski's argument, Miller said that he wasn't even talking about Dembski's argument.

Miller writes, "I do not remember the exact question that prompted my response."He claims he doesn't remember the question he was asked, but he claims he does remember he wasn't talking about Dembski. Miller's admission of a fading memory on this matter does not inspire confidence for the things he claims he does remember. After all, in the documentary Miller clearly states he is critiquing the "mathematical tricks employed by intelligent design," and Dembski is widely recognized as the leading mathematical theorist in the ID movement. Dembski seems a likely target for Miller's comments.

Since Miller can't remember everything from a year ago, what he does remember is probably wrong. And since Miller used the word "mathematical" and "intelligent design" together, he must have been talking about Dembski. After all, nobody else has ever tried to make a case for a creator based on probability.

Quote

(2) Miller has a history of misrepresenting intelligent design arguments:Miller attempts to pass the blame to Discovery Institute, saying we "should know better," implying we should not think he would misrepresent Dembski. This reminds us how, in 2003, Dembski told Miller that Miller "should know better" than to claim that ID necessarily requires “the direct and active involvement of an outside designer.” Yet in this very BBC documentary, Miller repeats the same false claim, saying, "By the terms of the advocates of intelligent design themselves, the designer creates outside of nature, supernaturally..." (time index 39:25) Shouldn’t Miller “know better” than to make such claims? Based upon this example and many others, we “know” that Miller at times misrepresents the arguments of ID-theorists.

This one really irks me. If you look at the incident that Luskin is referring to, it is Dembski who flails at a strawman as he addresses a criticism that Miller never made. Luskin, in turn, misconstrues Dembski's point. I would chock this up to abysmal reading skills on the part of Luskin and Dembski, but since they both have degrees, I think good old-fashioned dishonesty is the only explanation for their word-twisting.

Quote

(3) Miller admits that the documentary makes it look like he's talking about Dembski:....If we assume Miller's explanation of the situation is true, then according to Miller's admission that the documentary "does mislead the viewer," then I did nothing wrong. I simply watched the video and took away the message any reasonable viewer would take: the context strongly indicates that Miller was talking about Dembski.

No, a reasonable viewer would notice that Miller didn't say anything at all about Dembski. Both Jeremy and I saw this, which prompted Jeremy's email to Miller, which resulted in Miller confirming that he wasn't talking about Dembski. If any reasonable viewer would make the same mistake as Luskin, then how did several "Darwinists" manage to avoid that mistake?

Quote

(4) If Miller wasn't talking about Dembski, he's still promoting a straw man view:...no ID-proponent argues that mere improbability is enough to infer design nor do they argue that some inconsequential but unlikely event (like a hand dealt in a game of cards) is enough to falsify neo-Darwinian evolution. Design theorists acknowledge that improbable events happen all the time. When inferring design, they always couple improbability with some specification. One commenter on Dembski's blog, "gpuccio," explained this point clearly:

"As far as I know, nobody in the ID field has ever made the silly argument that Miller criticizes. Everybody, instead, in the ID field, constantly mentions the CSI argument due to Dembski, and so clearly and beautifully explained in many of his writing."

Well, if such an authority as gpuccio from UD says so, then it must be true.

What a crock. I'll bet most people who have the notion that evolution is simply too improbable have never even heard of, much less read, Dembski. The improbability argument was around long before Dembski, and it's still around. To say that nobody uses it by itself and that everybody always pairs improbability with specification is simply ridiculous. I can think of two IDers just in the past week who have trotted out the improbability argument without mentioning specification.

Heaven help the DI if Luskin is the best spokesman they can find. But then again, it really doesn't matter what he says. IDers will faithfully imbibe his swill no matter how putrid it is.

An excellent post , secondclass, but are you sure you have time for this when you need to be continuing to make mincemeat of that supercilious slimebucket, David Hagen at ISCID

Wanna be a fly on a wall? How about a bacterium on a fly on a wall? How about a mitchondrium in a bacterium on a fly on a wall?

You know what this reminds me of? Girl gossip in school - something I was never good at (because I was too busy reading Gould and Sagan and finding excuses for not going to dances like my mom wanted me to - oh, the irony).

The nastier it gets the more I lose heart. I'm watching somebody implode, and it ain't Ken Miller.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Wanna be a fly on a wall? How about a bacterium on a fly on a wall? How about a mitchondrium in a bacterium on a fly on a wall?

You know what this reminds me of? Girl gossip in school - something I was never good at (because I was too busy reading Gould and Sagan and finding excuses for not going to dances like my mom wanted me to - oh, the irony).

The nastier it gets the more I lose heart. I'm watching somebody implode, and it ain't Ken Miller.

I know that whiny self-pity and petulant pseudo-martyrdom is all that Dembski has left, but even at that, Bill's very mistaken if he thinks that interchange reflects favorably on him.

I think Bill's lost any ability to accurately see how he presents himself.

Quote

The nastier it gets the more I lose heart.

Kristine, you seem to have WAY higher expectations of that particular chunk of humanity than I do...

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

What's always puzzled me about it is its hidden implication. It seems to say to me, "Shit, if I knew Jehovah wouldn't punish me, I'd kill rape and rob everyone I saw. He11, how stupid ARE you that you don't share my fear of God, yet you aren't a selfish nihilist?" Really? is this an, uh, accurate glimpse of what you'd do if your fear of a Big Sky Daddy punishing you were lifted? Explain to me again why your theism makes you a 'better person' than me?

When I'm faced with people who tell me that atheists are all immoral, evil, baby-raping, homosexual murderers* (I think that's a direct quote), my response is something like: "Really? Are you seriously telling me that you cannot think of a single reason not to do all those things, other than that God tells you not to? That if you were to have a crisis of faith tomorrow, you'd be killing, stealing and raping before the day was out?"

If they say "Well... No. I suppose not..." then we can start a dialogue on the subject of ethics, and whether or not Christians really are better people.

If they say "Yes, that's exactly what I mean" (and it has happened), I back away slowly, being sure not to make any sudden movements.

* "homosexual murderers" does not mean "people who murder homosexuals", which is apparently OK.

An interesting point. Years ago when I fist 'discovered' chat rooms (which I now avoid like the plague), I was chatting with a fellow in an 'atheism' room, and we decided to 'go private' (not that way). He was a fundy, and he at one point asked me what I would do if I found out my son was gay. I replied, "Beat him." As I was typing a follow up message - "Just kidding, of course." - he writes "Me too, I guess we are not all that different."

I knew then that there are actually people that require fear of Hellfire to be decent people.

Wanna be a fly on a wall? How about a bacterium on a fly on a wall? How about a mitchondrium in a bacterium on a fly on a wall?

You know what this reminds me of? Girl gossip in school - something I was never good at (because I was too busy reading Gould and Sagan and finding excuses for not going to dances like my mom wanted me to - oh, the irony). :)

The nastier it gets the more I lose heart. I'm watching somebody implode, and it ain't Ken Miller.

hmm, much Tard here, will keep me going for days

Dembski said

Quote

Let me suggest you write up your thoughts in a formal article and submit them to a peer-reviewed publication. Once it’s accepted, I’ll be happy to look at it more closely and offer comment.

Irony meter on danger, must not e.x.p.l.o.d.e, danger Will Robinson, danger. Yeah, if Dembski was such a fan of peer-review you think he'd submit something himself!...

Quote

In your note to me below you write: “you seem incapable or unwilling to discuss the data or the inescapable conclusion that emerges from them.” Actually I’m quite willing. If you would like me to speak at your campus on the topic of intelligent design and address your data, I can put you in touch with my speakers bureau.

So Dembski will discuss the data but only if he gets paid! for it via a speaking arrangement. So, this is how science get's done in ID circles, he with the most $$ wins!

un-frikkin-believable.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Being built like an average NFL football player has its advantages but at my age I should be shooting for middleweight boxer instead.

Richard - Thanks for the link - At the end of the post, DaveScot tries to lure FTK to his little Texas Love-nest with his water-sport skilz.

I just hope FTK realizes that Dave assumes they're doing it, you know, for the kids:

Quote (Davescot @ his own deluded little world)

...once you've had a few wives of other men yelling at you in the throes of passion "I want to have your baby" then you'll understand. It's a little disconcerting at first but you get used to it after a while. It's a dirty job but someone has to make the world a smarter place. Some choose to teach children so they'll be smarter and some choose to make them smarter via genetics.

Does he not realize that people can, you know, see his picture? I'm no Brad Pitt, but if that picture is remotely 'accurate' (it sort of has to be - he took it himself!), he must realize that he is not all that attractive...

Then again, delusional megalomania probably does not stop with assessments of one's intellectual capabilities...